MASHOOQUE vs THE STATE
This bail application concerns an accused charged with an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who sought post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay. The applicant had been in custody for over two years and four months. The complainant opposed the application, arguing that the accused was a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal, evidenced by the nature of the alleged offence, and noting that the accused had requested adjournments during the trial. The Court rejected the complainant's argument, clarifying that the statutory exception for a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' refers to a convicted criminal, not an accused person who is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, the Court found that even after deducting the time attributable to the adjournments requested by the applicant, the period of incarceration still exceeded two years. Consequently, the Court held that the statutory delay entitled the applicant to bail and allowed the application, directing the release of the accused upon furnishing the required surety.
- Does the phrase 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' in the context of statutory bail apply to an accused person who has not yet been convicted?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay if the period of incarceration exceeds the statutory limit after deducting adjournments requested by the accused?
- Does the nature of the alleged offence alone classify an accused as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' for the purpose of denying bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The applicant/accused who was arrested on 8-8-1997 is undergoing trial for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. In Crime No,155 of 1997 of Police Station Kambar. The applicant has moved this bail application on the ground of statutory delay asserting that the delay in the conclusion of the trial has not been caused on account of his conduct. This is, however, opposed by Mr. Ghulam Hyder Baloch, learned counsel for the complainant who states that the accused had obtained two adjournments and the applicant/accused is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal which is. Evident from the fact that he killed two persons by shooting them in the head. The applicant has been in custody for a period of two years four months and 9 days till today. If 42 days are deducted which were the result of two adjournments taken by the applicant the period of custody is still over two years. The argument of learned counsel thit the manner in which the accused is alleged to have killed two persons shows that he is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal does not take into the account the fact that the phrase "hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal" uses the word criminal and not "person". The trial is still in progress and he is presumed to be innocent until he is convicted by the Court.
2. ' In view of this position, the application for grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay is allowed and the accused is directed to be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lakhs) with a P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- KHALID vs The STATE 2014 P Cr. L J 437
- NAZEER AHMED and 2 others vs THE STATE 2003 MLD 1591